You want to be a doctor in the future, how important is your patients to you?

[kandinsky]

lol

/thanks for the sarcastic tone in your responses/

I'm sorry but a GP isn't a specialist. A specialist is a specialist. We can debate the meaning of the word specialist if you like. If you want to be a specialist you specialise and practice in one specific area. If you are a GP you send patients with symptoms you are not so sure about to specialists so that they get the right diagnosis. The job of a GP is to generalise and to be able to pick up many, many things. But, as I said, once these things are picked up (depending on how serious they are, of course), they usually send the patient to a specialist.

Not so long ago medicine was not associated with the 'social elite'-and I don't think people would even say it is associated with the social elite today. There were many, many poor and failed doctors in the 19th century, for instance. And for a long, long time medicine was considered just another of the important jobs in society-it now seems to be constantly heralded as the one and only saviour of humanity. It has certainly always been considered as a very socially responsible and important profession, but 'elite' not so much-unless you're talking professors/heads of field in their specific area of medicine.

Also, it's not historically correct to say that you couldn't become a doctor unless you were from the social elite. Most doctors have always come from the middle/lower middle class. The social elite were busy babbling around in government or diplomatic careers or just, you know, 'being gentelmen/ladies'.

In my response I wasn't saying that GPs don't do an amazing job. Of course they do. I have huge respect for them.  I was just asking why you-as biomed students/potential med students-think that there is so much disrespect for nurses/paramedics etc in the whole socio-economic system.

And also, how do you know it's much harder if you're not even a GP yet?

And if saving lives is one of the criteria for being highly paid/respected, then why aren't paramedics or crisis soldiers etc? Seems the argument doesn't quite work out.

There is also no research/academic side to being a GP. That is, not once you've finished all your training. My aunt is a GP and she gets astonishingly bored in her job because,as she says, she's sick of dealing with people with colds all day. If you want to do medicine for the academic side, then become a specialist and write papers while doing research on patients in your area.

I feel like I added sparks to fuel here. Sorry, I didn't mean to provoke anyone. Just asking the (apparently) difficult questions. Clearly nobody liked the question I posed.

[pi]

Yup, ok it's not a specialty to you, but it is to everyone else:

However, since the 1950s general practice has become a specialty in its own right, with specific training requirements tailored to each country

In Australia, general practice is recognised as a specialty by a range of criteria

I'm not going to argue about the respect-factor, as I honestly don't care about that. You can choose to ignore the facts, accept them, or make your own beliefs up. Pursue medicine, don't pursue medicine. I don't really care, it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

But saying General Practice isn't a specialty is a bit of an archaic view of medicine.

[kandinsky]

Well actually I don't care either.

I didn't expect my original question to generate such heat...

Re: specialisation. I never denied the fact that a GP is a specialist in medicine. I debate the notion that a GP is a specialist in a specific area of medicine.

[Russ]

I have no interest in debating the definition of specialist. I have an interest in what is correct, which is that general practice is a specialty, requiring college membership. The fact that your aunt feels bored and unable to do research speaks more to her personal abilities/preferences/lifestyle/whatever than to the limitations of the specialty as a whole (it is entirely possible to do research as a GP, at UoM or otherwise). I just finished a voluntary 4 week term of being pseudo-GP and I've sat with specialists before; my opinion above was tongue in cheek, but I believe the amount of diagnosis happening at a GP office is far greater.

You can think that you're asking difficult questions, but you're really not.

[kandinsky]

I just finished a voluntary 4 week term of being pseudo-GP and I've sat with specialists before; my opinion above was tongue in cheek, but I believe the amount of diagnosis happening at a GP office is far greater.

You can think that you're asking difficult questions, but you're really not.

Ye I agree with your point about diagnosis-but that's a different question and overall the statistics would depend on who is at what practice etc. I think, as you say, that more diagnosis would occur at a clinic where there are numerous GPs and large client turnover and lots of great work done.

And if you read what I wrote above, I agreed that a GP is a specialist in medicine but not necessarily in a specific area of medicine. I don't think any GP would dispute this.

But nobody has argued the question about paramedics etc etc?

[pi]

And if you read what I wrote above, I agreed that a GP is a specialist in medicine but not necessarily in a specific area of medicine.

Why do you think that matters?

And if saving lives is one of the criteria for being highly paid/respected, then why aren't paramedics or crisis soldiers etc? Seems the argument doesn't quite work out.

And if you read what I wrote above, I said there were many other reasons (in fact I didn't even mention this one, but it is a reason too).

[kandinsky]

Why do you think that matters?

And if you read what I wrote above, I said there were many other reasons (in fact I didn't even mention this one, but it is a reason too).

a) because you brought up the point
b) because actual medical specialists, who in many cases have done almost 10 years extra worth of academic work compared to GPs, would I think be rather annoyed if GPs started waltzing around saying they too were medical specialists.

I'd like a fuller explanation please I suppose it's the old question of why x is paid x amount. Like the old question of why some bankers earn so much.

It is strange, though, that some of the academics teaching those of you who go on to become GPs/specialists etc earn a great deal less than what you will probably earn. What do you make of that? After all, most of the great medical discoveries have been made by medical or scientific researchers/academics in general (some of whom earn peanuts-e.g post-doctoral or untenured research staff and lab assistants) rather than GPs. They are the ones who make life-saving possible by finding a cure to x-medical problem, after all. Naturally I am aware that in order to save a life the problem must be diagnosed by the GP: but the GP would have no idea of the problem unless the research allowed them to understand it. It's like how they used to 'blood' people a few centuries ago: researching stuff allows for saving lives. GPs use that knowledge to help people. I suppose, in the end, people will do what they do.

P.S I really am just curious.

[keltingmeith]

And if saving lives is one of the criteria for being highly paid/respected, then why aren't paramedics or crisis soldiers etc? Seems the argument doesn't quite work out.

If that were the only reason for being highly paid/respected, then many of other occupations would also be highly paid/respected. Including, but not limited to, any scientific researcher, volunteers for the hungry/homeless, careers councillors, and the list goes on. It seems fairly obvious those aren't the only reasons why one would be highly paid/respected.

[kandinsky]

If that were the only reason for being highly paid/respected, then many of other occupations would also be highly paid/respected. Including, but not limited to, any scientific researcher, volunteers for the hungry/homeless, careers councillors, and the list goes on. It seems fairly obvious those aren't the only reasons why one would be highly paid/respected.

Yes, obviously. That was my point. That's one of the few reasons the other poster gave for GPs being highly paid. Note the words in my sentence 'the argument doesn't quite work out'

[heart]

so I can wear scrubs and show off my gainz 

[pi]

b) because actual medical specialists, who in many cases have done almost 10 years extra worth of academic work compared to GPs, would I think be rather annoyed if GPs started waltzing around saying they too were medical specialists.

I think you're misinformed. Unlike Russ I haven't had a GP rotation yet, but I know they are specialists because "your type" of "real specialists" have told me so. No-one waltzes around saying anything, because no one really cares. They're defined as specialists and so are neurologists, oncologists, cardiologists, etc. It doesn't matter.

It is strange, though, that some of the academics teaching those of you who go on to become GPs/specialists etc earn a great deal less than what you will probably earn. What do you make of that?

Um, most of the people who teach me are actually doctors?

As for the researchers, yeah it is a big shame that they're not paid more, they do the ground-breaking work to advance many fields. But that's not a fault of the doctors? That's a fault of the Government and their issues with funding.

Yes, obviously. That was my point. That's one of the few reasons the other poster gave for GPs being highly paid. Note the words in my sentence 'the argument doesn't quite work out'

When you said that you used it exclusively for one of the "criteria", paramedics don't undergo 15 years of rigorous training, they don't usually part-take in medical research (some do, sure), they're not historically people who have been looked up to when someone is at their lowest point in illness (I mean historically, it was doctors or God, some would argue it still is a common perception).

Sure, like doctors, paramedics have long hours, they "save lives" in the emergency setting (only), and so forth. They're integral to the health system. In fact, you'll find similarities to what doctors do (or are perceived to do) in many other health professions, but the others just don't tick all the boxes that doctors do.

Is this is "fair"? I don't know, and it's not an issue that overly concerns me. I know how valuable nurses, paramedics, etc are and that's what matters to me.

so I can wear scrubs and show off my gainz 

Charming.

[kandinsky]

so I can wear scrubs and show off my gainz 

finally an actual answer hahaha

[kandinsky]

I think you're misinformed. Unlike Russ I haven't had a GP rotation yet, but I know they are specialists because "your type" of "real specialists" have told me so. No-one waltzes around saying anything, because no one really cares. They're defined as specialists and so are neurologists, oncologists, cardiologists, etc. It doesn't matter.

Um, most of the people who teach me are actually doctors?

As for the researchers, yeah it is a big shame that they're not paid more, they do the ground-breaking work to advance many fields. But that's not a fault of the doctors? That's a fault of the Government and their issues with funding.

When you said that you used it exclusively for one of the "criteria", paramedics don't undergo 15 years of rigorous training, they don't usually part-take in medical research (some do, sure), they're not historically people who have been looked up to when someone is at their lowest point in illness (I mean historically, it was doctors or God, some would argue it still is a common perception).

Sure, like doctors, paramedics have long hours, they "save lives" in the emergency setting (only), and so forth. They're integral to the health system. In fact, you'll find similarities to what doctors do (or are perceived to do) in many other health professions, but the others just don't tick all the boxes that doctors do.

Is this is "fair"? I don't know, and it's not an issue that overly concerns me. I know how valuable nurses, paramedics, etc are and that's what matters to me.

Charming.

1. never said that.
2. see word "some"
3. never said it was the fault of doctors. Read my argument.
4. don't think that's true. Often in history people relied (and had to rely) mostly on relatives administering assistance, with occasional visits from doctors.
5. yes, good point. Although there are certain issues, I like the idea of overall utility- that doctors can do most things whereas others can only do certain things. Nice point.
6. In a supply and demand world GPs  claim an important place because they can do most medical things and save money for people (because others can't do all the things they can do). I'm not sure I ever said anything about fairness. I just asked what people think about it. You seem to think I'm attacking the role of GPs and you keep attacking my arguments as though I am. I never did so in any of my posts. My only query was the idea of GPs as specialists-which actually had nothing to do with my original post -I have no problem if GPs think they're specialists in general things. In the end it all depends on how you define the term specialist, which I reluctantly had to mention in that previous post.

[Tomw2]

I have no problem if GPs think they're specialists in general things. In the end it all depends on how you define the term specialist, which I reluctantly had to mention in that previous post.

Medical GPs are specialists in primary health care. Primary health care is a speciality, with a range of skills and knowledge base unique to that specialty.

I don't think you're attacking the role of GPs, I just think you don't really understand the health care system and specialisation/vocational training - which is perfectly understandable and forgivable given you have no solid experience with it. Hence why it's probably best to just take the advice.

[kandinsky]

Medical GPs are specialists in primary health care. Primary health care is a speciality, with a range of skills and knowledge base unique to that specialty.

I don't think you're attacking the role of GPs, I just think you don't really understand the health care system and specialisation/vocational training - which is perfectly understandable and forgivable given you have no solid experience with it. Hence why it's probably best to just take the advice.

Ye I think what happened is that people thought my initial question implied that nurses/paramedics should be paid the same as GPs. I did not intend to imply such a thing, nor do I in any way advocate that position (lol I'm not a Marxist). My bad for wording it in such a way that people thought I meant that. I think this is the reason why some people responded with such sarcasm.

Note what I wrote above regarding specialisation: GPs are specialists in medicine, but specialists specialise (or at least practice) in a specific area of medicine (in most cases). I of course agree that GPs are specialists in primary health care.

haha I had a funny discussion with @brightsky about it. For a specific reason, I thought that most medical specialists (and by that I mean specialists practising in one area alone) had a PhD etc in their field.

All the discussion about GPs and specialists is nevertheless beside the point.

I just wished to point out that there are many other professions which require 10+ years of study and/or experience but (in most cases) don't get anywhere near the same amount of social respect/standing/pay as being a GP. Earlier I pointed out that most medical discoveries are actually made by academic researchers who are usually on poor salaries by comparison. This is just one example.

It's a problem in all the disciplines, really. I don't think it's really the fault of any government or anything like that. I think it's just that GPs are more immediately useful to the general populace, whereas researchers may toil away for years before making a breakthrough or finding a better drug. The general populace also on average sees GPs more than they see any other profession. Researchers don't have as much that can immediately help sick people from day to day, and because at face value they don't give as much they don't receive as much. Moreover, they are usually working long hours in a department somewhere and don't come into much contact with the general populace. That said, professors are paid and probably even respected better than GPs, but it's really, really hard to become a professor. In contrast, post-doctoral/postgraduate researchers often get treated like crap, even though they usually do all the dirty work in labs (like cutting off rat heads, lol)